It is no secret that more extreme political views are becoming much more mainstream in America’s current political sphere- all you have to do is open a new channel and see the deluge of headlines. However, do these views many politicians currently champion actually represent the views of the American people? According to polling by The Hill, around 36% of Americans identify themselves as having politically moderate (towards the center of the political spectrum) views, a number that has remained fairly constant over time. However, despite this seeming stability, the last year seems to have brought several high-profile extremist candidates- on both the right and left. Donald Trump’s victory in the most recent election highlights this in the Republican party and Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral primary demonstrates this in the Democratic party. The question then becomes, why? If a candidate, especially in races in which almost all the votes go to two candidates, needs at least some moderate votes in order to win an election, why do these extremist candidates ever win at all? While multiple factors play into the decisions of groups to vote in the way they do, the void between politicians and those they represent as well as the echo chamber of media political coverage present possible explanations for the phenomenon of moderates helping elect extremist political candidates. 

One factor contributing to the rise of extremist political candidates is the disparity between political candidate’s messaging and priorities with those of voters. A analysis by New York Times  found that the most common professions before becoming a politician for Republican congressmen was medicine, real estate, and agriculture, while for Democratic congressmen, they are teaching, nonprofits, and unions. However, the vast majority of Americans do not work in these jobs. For example, there are fewer blue collar, scientific research, business, economics, or other similar professions represented. Why might this be an issue? Politicians are responsible for making decisions on a wide variety of policies over a variety of fields, many of which they have no expertise in. If there aren’t people in government who understand what they are legislating on, then it is likely that the politicians will make decisions that the people affected by or knowledgeable about those decisions are going to be displeased with the result.

According to Pew Research Center, 22% of Americans trust the government to do the right thing just about always or most of the time as of May 2024. While Americans’ definitions of good likely vary greatly, and satisfaction with the government can be affected by ideology, election cycles, and current events, this shows that 78% of Americans do not show this same level of trust in the government. This dissatisfaction with the government can translate into disillusionment with the political establishment, making voters pick candidates that, while they might not align exactly with their less extreme political view, are willing to break the government's status quo. Extremist political candidates tend to fit this mold quite well: they decry traditional ideologies, instead advocating for radical new policies and promising rapid, profound change. Many are ruthless in their attacks against institutions, candidates, and policies they believe are outdated or holding back what they view as a path to prosperity. Their willingness to question existing political systems and embrace change can be appealing to disenchanted voters. And for moderates, this allure can become more appealing as government and society becomes more and more polarized. When more extremist candidates are run, moderates often find themselves in a scenario where none of their options truly align with their political beliefs. When these candidates win, they inevitably find themselves dissatisfied, and seeking another candidate eager to bring change, who, as chance would likely have it, is yet another extremist. This leads to a cycle of one polarized candidate after another. 

However, politicians are not solely responsible for the rise of political extremism- it also very much lies in the public perception of political candidates, something largely shaped by mainstream news media. A UCLA Study found that out of twenty major media outlets analyzed, seventeen of them scored as liberal leaning. While this phenomenon’s effect is probably most easily understood in already liberal leaning voters and moderates- it is a well studied phenomenon that continually hearing views that reinforce their own leads to group polarization in which individuals become more and more extreme in their views- this can also result in polarization of Republican voters. Voters who don’t share the opinions of the journalists who put out articles may pick up on the bias and double standards to which non-liberals can be held in some left-leaning publications (or vice versa in conservative-leaning publications). This erodes their trust in these news organizations and leaves them feeling alienated. These concerns are often mirrored in political rhetoric: Trump is known for criticizing much of the media world for the bias he perceives, and Mamdani has been known to criticize conservative media. In all reality, both likely have some valid and some invalid complaints, but the reflection of disillusionment in voters by political candidates can be a driver of votes. If someone reflects a voter’s concerns and shares their frustrations, a voter may vote for them in the hopes the things they concern will change, and media bias is no exception. 

While it’s easy to dismiss moderate voting patterns since they tend not to be the loudest voices in a world full of strongly opinionated polarists, their importance is unestimable because at the end of the day, votes are votes, no matter where they come from. And should our political system even revolve around the loudest voice in the first place? The vocal minority who shouts the largest is not who should hold the power in a democracy. America was founded to be a representative democracy, in which the will of the general public, not of the few, prevails. And the majority will inevitably include moderates. We have created a political system in which people are forced to pick between two sides of a spectrum, one with no shades of gray. This system rewards falling in line with current political trends that become increasingly extreme, leaving many voters between a rock and a hard place. Elections should not be a choice between two evils, they should be a representation of what we as Americans believe and an opportunity to make our country the country we want ourselves and those we care about to live in. Therefore, the American public should reject extremist ideologies and break the cycle of polarization. Americans should feel free to reach across the aisle or to vote for third party candidates if they more accurately reflect their view so that we can elect leaders that actually reflect the electorate’s views. And while we may not all agree with what this view should be, we should all be able to agree with wanting the best for our country, a duty that is in our hands.

This article was edited by Jack Wimberley and Amaan Musani.